your opinion on a les paul studio

[pawpek]

Thanks smorgdonkey I saw them on the Gibson site and thought yep I'd like one and lo one turned up in the same colour in my local shop so I did a trade in with an 04 Epi and she is mine.... Welll she will be, in Sept as she is my 40th birthday prezzie!!!!

[lastingimage]

I love the Studios. I actually got my Standard (Desert Burst) first and purchased 2 Studios afterwards. I have a Cherry Burst 60's Deluxe and a brand new Blue Studio Pro Plus (currently in a NGD thread). When I was looking at the 60's Deluxe a Gibson employee confimed that the Deluxe Studio was exactly the same as the Traditional minus the binding. I really like the more simple lines of the Studio. A great guitar at a value price (by Gibson standards).
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[sonar1]

Beautimous!

[onvacation]

Originally Posted by Brynner

Moral of the story: A piece of wood has no idea what continent it grew on or how good it should sound based on how much it's worth on the market (where prices are dictated by the furniture and construction markets, not guitars) or who will eventually put their name on the headstock.

I am voting for you in the next presidential election. Honesty combined with practical thinking.

[Brynner]

Originally Posted by Brynner
Moral of the story: A piece of wood has no idea what continent it grew on or how good it should sound based on how much it's worth on the market (where prices are dictated by the furniture and construction markets, not guitars) or who will eventually put their name on the headstock.

And for my final campaign drive I'd have to add this...

A piece of wood has no idea what continent it grew on, how good it should sound based on how much it's worth on the market (where prices are dictated by the furniture and construction industries, not guitars), who will eventually put their name on the headstock, or the nationality of whoever presses the green button on the CNC machine.

What makes the real difference between modern cheap guitars and expensive guitars is typically the hardware, pickups and wiring (and sometimes fretwork, but even the Chinese seem to have mastered that now) ...and in the case of the Les Paul Studio, not even that because that's all the same as the other LPs. In that case, the difference is $600+ for binding and an extra few millimeters of body thickness because the stock from which they cut the Studio planks had swirls and knots that were spaced more closely together and therefore reduced the average thickness of the planks and price of the wood on the furniture market. Even considering that, you're talking about a few dollars difference in the worth of a grade C versus grade A piece of mahogany guitar stock and a few millimeters in body thickness ...which again leaves $600+ dollars for the binding.

If that sounds "odd", consider that the all-mahogany Studios are $799 and maple capped Studios are $1319. That's $520 for a piece of plain maple (worth literally a few dollars) and a solid paint colour rather than transparent. Add on another $600 for the next cheapest Les Paul, the ebony Standard Traditional Pro, and "a lone craftsman will carefully glue and fit 2 pieces of binding [ABS plastic which costs $9.05 at Stew Mac] around the entire body" and that comes with push-pull pots for coil splitting.

So, my opinion of the Les Paul Studio is that it's essentially a Les Paul which you didn't pay $600 to have a $9 stip of plastic installed on - which is pretty much what Gibson has said since it was first introduced. Not saying that I don't like that strip of plastic, because I sure do , but it is what it is.

If anything, I'd expect the "tone purists" would prefer the Studio because it doesn't have all that acoustically dead plastic on it absorbing vibrations, deadening the high frequencies and muddying the sound. After all, nitrocellulose lacquer supposedly sounds so much better than polyurethane, but 65 inches of plastic glued to the guitar sounds what, good?

Having said all that, Standards are still damn cool ...and Gibson uses that strip of plastic binding and the coolness it brings to tack $600 to $1000 onto the price tag.

[joemarshalljmp]

Feel ya, I never could understand how one company can put out a copy of a les paul standard for 200 or less but for better quality wood with practically the same tools from Gibson it can cost 5 grand with a famous persons sig on it! Don't get me wrong I love my studios and I wont ever own an Epiphone, just my opinion sorry, I'm just sayin I cant see payin over 1000 for any guitar until I'm rich like that maybe, Is there any information that Gibson offers as to what the cost of producing a guitar over 1000 bucks or maybe any info to shed light on the subject?

[joemarshalljmp]

P.s. guitar and side boob!!

[joemarshalljmp]

Originally Posted by lastingimage

I love the Studios. I actually got my Standard (Desert Burst) first and purchased 2 Studios afterwards. I have a Cherry Burst 60's Deluxe and a brand new Blue Studio Pro Plus (currently in a NGD thread). When I was looking at the 60's Deluxe a Gibson employee confimed that the Deluxe Studio was exactly the same as the Traditional minus the binding. I really like the more simple lines of the Studio. A great guitar at a value price (by Gibson standards).
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

I am not a blue guitar nut or nuthin, I have a blue studio that I like o.k. BUT that blue studio is Bad Ass!!!

[joemarshalljmp]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Brynner]

Originally Posted by joemarshalljmp

Feel ya, I never could understand how one company can put out a copy of a les paul standard for 200 or less but for better quality wood with practically the same tools from Gibson it can cost 5 grand with a famous persons sig on it! Don't get me wrong I love my studios and I wont ever own an Epiphone, just my opinion sorry, I'm just sayin I cant see payin over 1000 for any guitar until I'm rich like that maybe, Is there any information that Gibson offers as to what the cost of producing a guitar over 1000 bucks or maybe any info to shed light on the subject?

Since my experience with Edwards, Ibanez and other Asian brands (Japanese, Korean and Chinese) I've come to realize one big thing ...the wood is not a significant factor because the Asian grown woods sound as good as wood grown anywhere else (why wouldn't they?). "Craftsmanship" has largely been eliminated because most of the woodworking is done by CNC machines. So really, the only things left are hardware and electronics - the Japanese equal the Americans in that regard, the Koreans are slightly behind (unless you're talking their top lines like Artec's Giovanni pickup line, etc), and the Chinese are in third (largely because they use the cheapest hardware and electronics they can get away with).

However, if you take a cheap Chinese guitar from a reputable company with decent quality control, the body and neck themselves will often be just as good as anything coming out of Gibson or Fender. That's just the way it is, like I said, a tree is not influenced in the slightest by its owner's nationality or the strength of the economy in the region, and a CNC machine makes no mistakes. That essentially leaves just the hardware, pickups and wiring - all of which can be upgraded to the absolute top of the line for much less than it would cost for a similar spec'ed American guitar.

In the case of the Studio it's much closer than even that because the hardware, pickups and electronics are the same as the more expensive models - the only significant difference are the $9 strips of binding.

American made guitars are more expensive because materials and labour costs are much higher here. American suppliers are not going to sell components for pennies and workers will not work for a few dollars a day (and be quite happy with their good jobs at that). Regardless of the product, that will be reflected in the price. For companies like Gibson to compete they have to draw big bucks based on tradition and name, despite the fact that they no longer have the corner on quality products. What really separates a Gibson from the higher end Agiles or Edwards? Quality? No. Name and cost - nothing else of significance. Take the names off the headstocks and you suddenly have two guitars of equal "quality" ...and just knocked $1500 to $3000 off the value of one of them.

Heresy? Maybe, but there are no other arguments other than "Gibson LP Standards are much better because of the craftsmanship and top pick woods", and those are no longer valid because CNC machines are largely responsible for what was once "craftsmanship" and a wood's tone has nothing to do with its appearance-based furniture grade. Sure, perhaps a $5000 Les Paul Custom will have better filed fret ends than an Edwards, but the wood, hardware, pickups and electronics will be no better (unless by random chance... which can favour either one). Yes, the "mahogany" will probably be different species, but does that mean different "quality" or even that different tone? No. So you're essentially paying an extra $4000 for a luthier to file the fret ends down better and to lacquer "Gibson" on the headstock (and the fret ends might not be filed down better, I'm just going with my experience that Edwards tend to have sharpish frets on their ebony boards ...possibly because the wood dries and contracts in transit).

Similar with the Gibson LP Studio vs. the Standard, but in that case there's $600 to $1000 extra for perhaps a few more millimeters in body thickness (which may or may not have any effect at all on tone and would be minor at most) and the binding ...because the binding makes it the "real thing".

[sonar1]

Originally Posted by Brynner

...the wood is not a significant factor because the Asian grown woods sound as good as wood grown anywhere else...

Not to quibble about a small observation in a post I otherwise mostly agree with, but I bet a lot of the offshore manufacturers import their wood from the same suppliers as all the big guys.

And, species do matter. Philipine mahogany does not have the strength other versions have (and there are probably other corollary examples). It's weak, though it looks the same to most people.

[Brynner]

Originally Posted by joemarshalljmp

P.s. guitar and side boob!!

Yes, these are a few of my favourite things...



...and it's an Edwards!!!!



Sorry, don't have any with the Studio.

[joemarshalljmp]

Originally Posted by Brynner

Yes, these are a few of my favourite things...



...and it's an Edwards!!!!



Sorry, don't have any with the Studio.

she can hold mine!

[Brynner]

Originally Posted by sonar1

Not to quibble about a small observation in a post I otherwise mostly agree with, but I bet a lot of the offshore manufacturers import their wood from the same suppliers as all the big guys.

And, species do matter. Philipine mahogany does not have the strength other versions have (and there are probably other corollary examples). It's weak, though it looks the same to most people.

Actually, I agree with both those observations as well. I suspect a lot of manufacturers are getting their woods from the same plantations ...from all over the world - wherever the price and supply is best. It only makes sense considering they rarely reveal the details of their woods anyway.

I've also noticed that the Philippine mahogany is weaker than the other "mahoganies", though I don't know if that relative weakness is significant unless you actually drop the guitar on its neck. I really didn't mean to trivialize the differences between the woods because there certainly are differences in strength, tone, etc. My point was that tone-wise, however, one can't really say one is "better" than the other. In my experience, Philippine mahogany, though not as stiff, is an excellent sounding tonewood. It doesn't seem to be quite as resonant as Honduras mahogany and is a little more scooped in the mids in comparison, but it has excellent properties of its own (nice deep, tight bottom, clear highs). Put in the context of the total guitar, it makes for a fine sounding LP.

As a comparison, my Edwards, which I assume is made of Philippine mahogany for several reasons, seems to be more flexible in the neck than my Gibson, which I'm pretty certain is Honduras mahogany because of the red colour and the fact that it's sourced from South America (as told to me by a Gibson rep). However, the Edwards neck is a little thinner than the Gibson, which would make it more flexible anyway. On the other hand, I have an Ibanez Artcore AS73 which I'm reasonably certain also has a Philippine mahogany neck, and that feels fairly stiff. So, it's a little hard for me to form a strong opinion on it.

But I can say with near certainty that for the other staple woods - maples, rosewoods, etc - I can't tell one iota's difference between those coming on Asian guitars and those from America. If comparing two guitars with the same species wood, I don't think it matters in the slightest what continent that wood is coming from or machined, as long as the quality control at the factory is good. Yet there are often thousands of dollars in the difference between these guitars, for what essentially comes down to hardware, electronics and the name on the headstock - which is simply ridiculous.

As an example of Gibson charging ridiculous prices based on name, the ES-335 1959 and 1960 reissues are priced $1760 more than the regular Custom Shop ES-335 Dot, yet these guitars are practically identical in spec with the exception that the pickguard is longer on the reissues, the knobs are a different colour, and the tuning keys have different heads. The knobs and key heads don't affect the cost, so Gibson is charging $1760 more for that extra inch of plastic pickguard and the fact that along with the colour of the knobs and key heads that allows it to be called a "1959 reissue". As far as I'm concerned, not only is that ridiculous, it is actually an insult from Gibson to their customers and potential customers.

[Brynner]

Originally Posted by joemarshalljmp

she can hold mine!

How about a Strat?



Sorry, this is a hijack ...here's my Studio again... Burstbuckers 1 & 3, PIO caps and '50s wiring. Real nice, resonant guitar.

[sonar1]

Originally Posted by Brynner

...Sorry, this is a hijack ...here's my Studio again... Burstbuckers 1 & 3, PIO caps and '50s wiring. Real nice, resonant guitar...

Is there pearl in that finish?

[sonar1]

[QUOTE=Brynner;2601672]A...I've also noticed that the Philippine mahogany is weaker than the other "mahoganies", though I don't know if that relative weakness is significant unless you actually drop the guitar on its neck. I really didn't mean to trivialize the differences between the woods because there certainly are differences in strength, tone, etc. My point was that tone-wise, however, one can't really say one is "better" than the other. In my experience, Philippine mahogany, though not as stiff, is an excellent sounding tonewood. It doesn't seem to be quite as resonant as Honduras mahogany and is a little more scooped in the mids in comparison, but it has excellent properties of its own (nice deep, tight bottom, clear highs). Put in the context of the total guitar, it makes for a fine sounding LP...QUOTE]

I believe that it sounds nice as a LP.

And in solid body guitars with adjustable trussrods, strength is no longer an issue.

I've just had students with Philippino guitars that folded up!

[Brynner]

Originally Posted by sonar1

Is there pearl in that finish?

Nope, that's something called "Pewter". As far as I know they only made them in 2001 and perhaps 2002. I got it a few years ago because it was in like-new condition and looked "rare" to me. It's very loud unplugged - other than the semi-hollow it's probably the loudest guitar I have unplugged ...and it's not chambered.

I've just had students with Philippino guitars that folded up!

They charge extra for that feature.

[Brynner]

Originally Posted by Brynner

As a comparison, my Edwards, which I assume is made of Philippine mahogany for several reasons, seems to be more flexible in the neck than my Gibson, which I'm pretty certain is Honduras mahogany because of the red colour and the fact that it's sourced from South America (as told to me by a Gibson rep). However, the Edwards neck is a little thinner than the Gibson, which would make it more flexible anyway. On the other hand, I have an Ibanez Artcore AS73 which I'm reasonably certain also has a Philippine mahogany neck, and that feels fairly stiff. So, it's a little hard for me to form a strong opinion on it.

Actually, this was "bugging" me so I just sat down for an hour with the three guitars - the Gibson LP Studio, the Edwards E-LP-92CD and the Ibanez AS73 - flexing on the necks and noting the pitch drop on a digital tuner. Contrary to my impression, the Edwards neck does not seem to flex any easier than the Gibson. In order to get the same pitch drop from the low E string I have to put roughly equal force on the Gibson or the Edwards at the headstock. That's not really surprising though, because even if there were differences in the density of the woods the truss rods were counter that out.

So, I tried to test the wood itself by holding the neck tight at the nut and flexing on the top of the headstock to see if I could get the headstock itself to flex. They do. Both the Edwards and the Gibson headstocks seemed to flex the same amount for the same pressure - it was nearly impossible to perceive any difference between the two.

It's harder to tell with the Ibanez because it's an ES-335 body shape and where I have to hold the body to torque on it is a little different. It doesn't "feel" much different when done back to back with the other two, but I couldn't judge for sure. My gut feeling is no difference. The headstock is different so it's easier to torque on it, making the comparison meaningless. It flexes like the others, but I don't think it's really any different than the Gibson if comparing apples to apples.

Out of this little experiment I'd have to conclude that there's no major difference between neck stability between whatever mahogany ESP is using in the Edwards LP's, what Ibanez is using in the Artcores, and the South American mahogany that Gibson uses in the Studios (and other LPs). Of course, this was far from scientifically rigorous, but it's enough to at least satisfy my curiosity. To be honest, neither of the mahoganies seem terribly rigid to me, I can see why Gibsons are notorious for breaking just below the headstock, especially when compared to something like maple.

It's crazy the things I've done to these guitars in the name of "benchmarking".

Sorry that was off-topic, but it came up before and I didn't want to leave people with false impressions.

[jiveturkey1]

mine

[smorgdonkey]

Originally Posted by Brynner

Actually, this was "bugging" me so I just sat down for an hour with the three guitars - the Gibson LP Studio, the Edwards E-LP-92CD and the Ibanez AS73 - flexing on the necks and noting the pitch drop on a digital tuner. **edited for length**
It's crazy the things I've done to these guitars in the name of "benchmarking".

Sorry that was off-topic, but it came up before and I didn't want to leave people with false impressions.

The biggest issue with the quality/qualities of wood(s) is not the strength specifically, but the density. The wood from the location with the shorter growing season will typically be more favourable. This is particularly an issue when it comes to the tops of solid top acoustic guitars. The grain being 'tighter' makes a huge difference.

[Skintaster]

I've owned a couple of different Studios, and both were good guitars. I have a recent alpine white one, and love it. I think it looks classy, and don't miss the binding at all... I think it would look stupid with binding.

I think that the reason that Studios occasionally catch flack from other Gibson enthusiasts is that they're the most affordable ones... Just snobbery really. Because after playing a whole bunch over the years, I can't say that I've stumbled over any that really sucked... And I can't honestly say that about a few Standards I've played.

[Tangerine]

I love mine, it just feels right in my hands when I'm playing. It was my first Gibson and even when I eventually buy a more expensive one I will still keep my Firebust Studio.